State v. Starke, 800 N.W.2d 705

Starke, a 79-year-old man living alone in Burlington, was charged with terrorizing after an January 2009 incident in his home.
Tow truck operators entered Starke's home to retrieve a payment issue and were threatened with a rifle when confronted about the bill.
Starke and his caregiver testified he only placed the gun on the table and warned that it was loaded; they claimed no firearm was used physically.
The jury was instructed on self-defense and defense of property, but not on defense of premises as requested by Starke.
Starke was convicted of terrorizing and sentenced to three years with one year suspended; he later challenged the jury instruction adequacy.
The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial due to the district court's failure to instruct on defense of premises.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Defense-of-premises instruction	Starke argued the defense of premises instruction was supported by the evidence.	State argued the instruction was not required or properly preserved.	District court erred by not giving defense of premises instruction; remanded for a new trial.

Erickson v. Brown, 2008 ND 57 (ND) (instructions must fairly inform the jury of applicable law)
State v. Blunt, 2010 ND 144 (ND) (instructions need not be in exact requested language)
State v. Ness, 2009 ND 182 (ND) (instructions may be refused if irrelevant or inapplicable)
State v. Falconer, 2007 ND 89 (ND) (self-defense instruction required if evidence supports it)